TheEmrys Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
IQ-wise, it's quite a good lens. Well, if it is the original model with the macro switch. It's plain old great. Minolta made a ton of them, and they are better than the 28-85/3.5-4.5.
The 35-105 is often referred to as a hidden G lens. It was very popular for portraiture, with lower microcontrast which often hides flawed skin. Its contrast is excellent, as well as it's color and bokeh.
AF wise, it performs as one would expect the very first AF lenses made would. It isn't fast, but it isn't abysmally slow, either, as it's modest speeds makes focus acquisition fairly straightforward. The first generation Minolta 85/1.4 could struggle.
As for the performance of the lens, in terms of where it sits in the Minolta Maxxum/Dynax lens pantheon, for the first generation of lenses, it was second only to the best copies of the 28-135/4-4.5, often referred to as the Secret Handshake. The tough part is that the 28-135 was quite a complex design and over the years, it is easy for them to lose their sharpness as things get knocked about. But, the 35-105 is a simpler design. I have had 8 copies of the 28-135, with 1 being really good, and 1 being excellent. The rest were boring. I have had nearly 20 copies of the 35-105 macro, and I had 1 copy that wasn't great.
Color signature, bokeh, and contrast were nearly identical among the early Minolta. They really brought a unified look to the masses. And the 35-105 has the excellent rendering of the early Minolta. They all suffer from CA.
On the LA-EA4, it's decent. Just don't expect to use af-c. But for af-s, it's decent. Excellent for static subjects. The Sony 24-105 and the Minolta 28-135 were my walk-around lenses. Preferred the Minolta look, but liked the Sony's seize better.
|